Trigger warnings: likabehandling eller ett hot mot utbildningsväsendet? : en argumentationsanalys av den svenska offentliga debatten

Sammanfattning: Trigger warnings as a concept is mainly a tool to make students aware of potentially triggering content in literature and has its origin in internet adaptions of psychological theories of posttraumatic stress disorder. The aim of this essay was to describe and analyse the argumentation in the public debate over trigger warnings in Sweden and to illustrate the fundamental questions relating to education that is highlighted by it. This was done through argumentation analysis and with theories of liberalism and identity politics as poles of a dimension of justice, illustrated by two different perspectives on disability pedagogy. The material chosen consisted of nine articles, radio programs and televised debates. The results show a clear tendency for advocates of trigger warnings to lean towards identity politics and a critical perspective on disability pedagogy in their argumentation, while the critics firmly represented a liberal, universalist perspective along with a compensatory perspective on disability pedagogy in theirs. Three fundamental questions arose in the debate: first, safety in the realm of education, meant as void of feelings of being offended, was viewed as essential by the authors who were pro trigger warnings and as a threat to the sole purpose of education by those who were against it. Second, the importance of a diagnosis for disability pedagogy, where those against stressed the importance of a diagnosis, the lack of which in combination with a request for a trigger warning was viewed as being easily offended. Advocates on the other hand were uninterested in diagnoses. Finally, the relation between free speech and democratic values in the educational system and in the society as a whole, where those authors favouring trigger warnings tended to view free speech as less fundamental than those opposed, who instead saw trigger warnings as a threat.